Daily Dime - Spurs win over Boston a tidbit?

[benefactor]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-090209

I know I should let it go, but it just irks me. Until I read closely, I thought there was no mention at all of our win in Boston. It is stuffed at the bottom of #3, below Steve Nash's picture...mixed in with a bunch of meaningless Elias stats. It is actually a tidbit about two players in the Spurs front court having at least 23pts each, so it really doesn't single out the fact that we just beat one of the best teams in the NBA on their home floor.

Whatever. :rolleyes

[FreeMason]

This whole weekend has been ridiculously lame. The NBA media coverage from EVERYBODY is so saturated with Laker dick sucking I don't see how fans don't become tired of it and root against the Lakers.

You would think eventually they'd have to talk about something else, but it is Lakers 24/7.

That lame circus in PHX gets more run.

[dougp]

Imagine if we had the big 3 sit for this game, hah.

[mathbzh]

Even the D-League Dunk contest has its own little "Dime"...
But that's fair... who care about a game between the last two champions...

[ambchang]

Check out the highlights from ESPN, I actually thought the Celtics won the game with their share of highlights, which include exciting plays such as nailing jumpshots.

But it works, everybody around me hates the Spurs (and have been hating for the last 10 5 or 6 years).

[DeadlyDynasty]

People it was a sunday afternoon matchup between not only the teams with the two best records in the NBA, but Kobe v. LeBron. I don't particularly agree with it--especially since I thought the Celtic-Spur game was more competitive--but that's what the people want. You guys should be happy...ur a 4-time NBA champion that is somehow flying under the media radar despite another solid year. Gives Pop another chance to use the no-respect card

[Bartleby]

Sad but not surprising that the match between the two most recent NBA champs got second billing to "the main event" (between the two most recent runners-up). And yes, the coverage afterwords has been absolutely pathetic. I guess it didn't turn out the way ESPN wanted it to. No wonder the Spurs are always flying under the radar.

[mathbzh]

People it was a sunday afternoon matchup between not only the teams with the two best records in the NBA, but Kobe v. LeBron. I don't particularly agree with it--especially since I thought the Celtic-Spur game was more competitive--but that's what the people want. You guys should be happy...ur a 4-time NBA champion that is somehow flying under the media radar despite another solid year. Gives Pop another chance to use the no-respect card

You are right, I don't care about all the Kobe/Lebron circus... but the D-League dunk contest... come on!

[ambchang]

LOL, this one tops them all.
Under point 7, there was an excerpt of an interview with DENVER NUGGETS coach George Karl. The three featured questions were:

On the Lakers' trade of Vladimir Radmanovic to Charlotte for Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown:

On the Lakers after Andrew Bynum's injury and the Radmanovic trade:

On competing with the Lakers, who eliminated Denver in a first-round sweep last April:

This is just hilarious.

[FromWayDowntown]

but that's what the people want.

Is it what the people want or is it what the people have been made to want by the media's infatuation with both players, even before either had done anything as a pro?

I'm not one to complain about media coverage of the Spurs, but I also think that there's been a pervasive "let's pimp a few guys and make them stars and then fawn all over them" component to media coverage of the NBA for a long time. Frankly, I think the NBA wants it that way. But I also think that it's that sort of coverage that leads people to ignore matchups that don't include those select few players. I'm not sure that the run-of-the-mill sports fan would be turned off to a Spurs/Magic Finals in the main, but since virtually none of the players on those teams are among the media's anointed children, people believe that there's no story and that the games won't be worth watching.

I don't buy that the people are driving coverage that way, either.

In the end, there's nothing I can do to change it. I've never thought the legitimacy of championships turns on TV ratings and I think that those who would try to diminish the greatness of a team by pointing to a low Q-rating are inane.

[DeadlyDynasty]

LOL, this one tops them all.
Under point 7, there was an excerpt of an interview with DENVER NUGGETS coach George Karl. The three featured questions were:

On the Lakers' trade of Vladimir Radmanovic to Charlotte for Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown:

On the Lakers after Andrew Bynum's injury and the Radmanovic trade:

On competing with the Lakers, who eliminated Denver in a first-round sweep last April:

This is just hilarious.

What the Lakers do affects everyone in the NBA:D

[Doug Collins]

People it was a sunday afternoon matchup between not only the teams with the two best records in the NBA, but Kobe v. LeBron. I don't particularly agree with it--especially since I thought the Celtic-Spur game was more competitive--but that's what the people want. You guys should be happy...ur a 4-time NBA champion that is somehow flying under the media radar despite another solid year. Gives Pop another chance to use the no-respect card

I thought it was funny that with about 2:48 left in the 4th, Tirico said "2 minutes 48 seconds until Kobe vs. LeBron!" completely ignoring the highly competitive and entertaining game in front of him.

It's a joke, but who cares.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Is it what the people want or is it what the people have been made to want by the media's infatuation with both players, even before either had done anything as a pro?

I'm not one to complain about media coverage of the Spurs, but I also think that there's been a pervasive "let's pimp a few guys and make them stars and then fawn all over them" component to media coverage of the NBA for a long time. Frankly, I think the NBA wants it that way. But I also think that it's that sort of coverage that leads people to ignore matchups that don't include those select few players. I'm not sure that the run-of-the-mill sports fan would be turned off to a Spurs/Magic Finals in the main, but since virtually none of the players on those teams are among the media's anointed children, people believe that there's no story and that the games won't be worth watching.

I don't buy that the people are driving coverage that way, either.

In the end, there's nothing I can do to change it. I've never thought the legitimacy of championships turns on TV ratings and I think that those who would try to diminish the greatness of a team by pointing to a low Q-rating are inane.

I'm not saying it's right, it is what is is. It's a Sunday afternoon game meaning there's a chance of millions of "casual" NBA fans possibly watching the game. The two best players on the 2 best teams (record-wise) were set to play. The casual fan is more likely to watch that then run of the mill fundamental basketball. The irony is that LA was fundamentally impressive in their win at Cleveland (only 6 TOs, great defense, fluid offense). It's a player-driven league and has been for as long as I can remember.

[FreeMason]

I thought it was funny that with about 2:48 left in the 4th, Tirico said "2 minutes 48 seconds until Kobe vs. LeBron!" completely ignoring the highly competitive and entertaining game in front of him.

It's a joke, but who cares.

Exactly. And in that time, they kept cutting to Lebron/Kobe walking out of tunnels, lacing up shoes, etc.

[Mal]

fuck ESPN, fuck Hollinger, fuck Butler, fuck Nash

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not saying it's right, it is what is is. It's a Sunday afternoon game meaning there's a chance of millions of "casual" NBA fans possibly watching the game. The two best players on the 2 best teams (record-wise) were set to play. The casual fan is more likely to watch that then run of the mill fundamental basketball. The irony is that LA was fundamentally impressive in their win at Cleveland (only 6 TOs, great defense, fluid offense). It's a player-driven league and has been for as long as I can remember.

Sure. My point is that outlets like ESPN have chosen to anoint players like those two, almost to the exception of others. I wonder sometimes where the league would be if ESPN had chosen to give the same sort of devoted, loving, "your my boy" coverage to Tim Duncan 10 years ago -- I suspect, frankly, that people would be tuning in to watch the Spurs because Tim Duncan would be a mega-star.

Again, my point isn't to dispute what you've said in general. It's to dispute this notion that "it's what the people want" in the sense that I think it's what the people have been made to want.

If this is the NFL, the Spurs are a must-watch glory team and Duncan is a mega-star. In the NBA, guys who have substantially fewer actual accomplishments than a guy like Duncan are mega-stars, teams that haven't done as much as Duncan's Spurs are must-watch glory teams. That's no coincidence -- it's directed coverage.

[mathbzh]

I'm not saying it's right, it is what is is. It's a Sunday afternoon game meaning there's a chance of millions of "casual" NBA fans possibly watching the game. The two best players on the 2 best teams (record-wise) were set to play. The casual fan is more likely to watch that then run of the mill fundamental basketball. The irony is that LA was fundamentally impressive in their win at Cleveland (only 6 TOs, great defense, fluid offense). It's a player-driven league and has been for as long as I can remember.

But why do they focus only on Kobe and Lebron? I will never understand that.
In Duncan and Garnett they have a fight for the age between the best two PF of their generation. Two former MVP, 5 rings... they can't market that?

This is killing the NBA IMO... even the casual fan is not stupid and can understand there is a problem when the media darlings can't win a title.
When Jordan was the face of the NBA he had the rings to prove his value.

[benefactor]

Sure. My point is that outlets like ESPN have chosen to anoint players like those two, almost to the exception of others. I wonder sometimes where the league would be if ESPN had chosen to give the same sort of devoted, loving, "your my boy" coverage to Tim Duncan 10 years ago -- I suspect, frankly, that people would be tuning in to watch the Spurs because Tim Duncan would be a mega-star.

This would have happened if he would have been drafted by Boston...and you would have never heard "Tim Duncan" and "boring" in the same sentence.

[Spurminator]

Is it what the people want or is it what the people have been made to want by the media's infatuation with both players, even before either had done anything as a pro?

I'm not one to complain about media coverage of the Spurs, but I also think that there's been a pervasive "let's pimp a few guys and make them stars and then fawn all over them" component to media coverage of the NBA for a long time. Frankly, I think the NBA wants it that way. But I also think that it's that sort of coverage that leads people to ignore matchups that don't include those select few players. I'm not sure that the run-of-the-mill sports fan would be turned off to a Spurs/Magic Finals in the main, but since virtually none of the players on those teams are among the media's anointed children, people believe that there's no story and that the games won't be worth watching.

I don't buy that the people are driving coverage that way, either.

In the end, there's nothing I can do to change it. I've never thought the legitimacy of championships turns on TV ratings and I think that those who would try to diminish the greatness of a team by pointing to a low Q-rating are inane.


The networks give the fans the superstars because that's what the fans are more interested in, and the fans are only exposed to the superstars because that's what the networks feed them, and so on and so on.

But I think there's a way to cover/hype your marquee players in a way that doesn't take away from matchups that don't feature them. ESPN and ABC have sort of dug their own grave with regard to low ratings for matchups that don't feature the Lakers or Celtics. It's one thing if the fans just weren't interested, it's another thing entirely when you devote weeks of your on-air "analysis" to talking about what a boring Finals the Nets vs. the Spurs would be.

ESPN has made ratings and fan apathy a part of its coverage, which compounds the issue.

[SpursFanFirst]

Is it what the people want or is it what the people have been made to want by the media's infatuation with both players, even before either had done anything as a pro?

I'm not one to complain about media coverage of the Spurs, but I also think that there's been a pervasive "let's pimp a few guys and make them stars and then fawn all over them" component to media coverage of the NBA for a long time. Frankly, I think the NBA wants it that way. But I also think that it's that sort of coverage that leads people to ignore matchups that don't include those select few players. I'm not sure that the run-of-the-mill sports fan would be turned off to a Spurs/Magic Finals in the main, but since virtually none of the players on those teams are among the media's anointed children, people believe that there's no story and that the games won't be worth watching.

I don't buy that the people are driving coverage that way, either.

In the end, there's nothing I can do to change it. I've never thought the legitimacy of championships turns on TV ratings and I think that those who would try to diminish the greatness of a team by pointing to a low Q-rating are inane.

:tu Very well put.
If I ever need a lawyer...

[SenorSpur]

I guess we'll have to rely on our ol' friend Skip Bayless to keep the Spurs on the mind of the national conscious.

[Sec24Row7]

It bites them in the ass in the long run. They never hype the spurs... and 4 times in the last 9 years their semi final or western conference final has gotten more viewership than the western conference final because....

THE SPURS KICK THE "Exciting" TEAMS ASS...

If they would pimp the spurs... they would have an exciting team to watch the whole time!

You can't tell me that ANYONE in the league thinks that Tony and Manu are boring to watch...

They only have themselves to blame for the predicament...

It's not the Spurs' fault... all they do is win... like they are supposed to.

[FromWayDowntown]

The networks give the fans the superstars because that's what the fans are more interested in, and the fans are only exposed to the superstars because that's what the networks feed them, and so on and so on.

But I think there's a way to cover/hype your marquee players in a way that doesn't take away from matchups that don't feature them. ESPN and ABC have sort of dug their own grave with regard to low ratings for matchups that don't feature the Lakers or Celtics. It's one thing if the fans just weren't interested, it's another thing entirely when you devote weeks of your on-air "analysis" to talking about what a boring Finals the Nets vs. the Spurs would be.

ESPN has made ratings and fan apathy a part of its coverage, which compounds the issue.

I agree with all of this, really. I suppose I'm just spitballing thoughts that have been rumbling through my head while I spend an hour on the treadmill every morning listening to the re-hashed Sports Center with hosts who will literally ask each other aloud how a replay of an obscure college kid making an incredible block can be ranked higher than a replay of a routine Lebron break-away dunk.

I got to wondering how ESPN would have handed last week's 61 point game if the 61-point scorer -- putting up exactly the same line -- had been, say, Brandon Roy or Dirk Nowitzki or Kevin Martin. Would that performance get a 12-minute stand-alone highlight package with every field goal and many free-throws being replayed? I doubt it.

I think you're right that ESPN/ABC make apathy a self-fulling prophecy by selling "sexy" games in the midst of what's on-going, too. Had the schedule yesterday been reversed, I'm not sure we get the same breathless promos for the Boston/SA game coming up next that we got for the Kobe/Lebron matchup that happened to include the Lakers and Cavaliers.

What's really odd about all of this is that the league and it's media partners could have gone on a full-out WWE kind of campaign and made for captivating team stories. It would have been very easy to make teams like the Spurs and Pistons or recent vintage not the boring alternatives to high-flying, drama-creating players, but the credible heels of the league -- the ultimate villians in the game's drama. I realize that the owners of the SPurs and Pistons (and the fans, too) might have been reluctant to agree to such a thing, but marketing those teams that way makes them still fun to watch -- if only to root against them -- while giving people a reason to watch even if the big-market darlings aren't involved.

[DazedAndConfused]

The Rockets also beat the Celtics in their building with nary a mention from anyone.

I think many are assuming the Celtics are in another skid after losing to the Lakers again.

[crc21209]

I saw Sportscenter at about 5 or 6 p.m and they led off with...."Well if you dont know...now you know....the Lakers broke the Cavs streak today" and I thought WTF?!?!? Are you serious? But I should have known better, that Laker cock is so deep down ESPN's throat its not even funny. AND to top that off, they went from Lakers-Cavs to FUCKING NASCAR. Then finally after that a quick 2 minute highlight of Spurs-Celtics. What bullshit.

[Darkwaters]

Even the D-League Dunk contest has its own little "Dime"...
But that's fair... who care about a game between the last two champions...


Happen to notice a familiar name in that specific blurp?

James White!

[CubanMustGo]

What I found amusing during the Cadaver-Faker game yesterday was when one of the announcers talked about "Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, you could talk about their accomplishments all day" or some crap like that.

Yes, do tell, what exactly HAS LeBron accomplished besides a unique way of throwing talcum power into the air?

[jdiggy0424]

yeah i saw that too and even though LA is the best team in the nba now, ur gonna tell me that you dont even feature an article about the Spurs-Celtcs game? Unbelievable. ESPN is getting it up the ass from Lebron and Kobe that idk how the hole isnt in catastrophic condition now.

Tim Duncan had another great game yesterday. He is the only player in the nba to have 20 pts 10 reb and 5 assists a total of 5 times. But no espn dare not report that for fear it might lose the fan base. It upsets me that espn is unappreciating greatness at work. What has kobe done the last 4 years???? NOTHING. What has lebron done the last 4 years??? NOTHING!

oh but they put a featured article on the d league dunk contest. Screw that dude.
Its high time we start getting respect for teams that actually have done something when it counts, the playoffs. Not stroking the abnormally long dick of kobe and lebron.

[NFGIII]

I'm not saying it's right, it is what is is. It's a Sunday afternoon game meaning there's a chance of millions of "casual" NBA fans possibly watching the game. The two best players on the 2 best teams (record-wise) were set to play. The casual fan is more likely to watch that then run of the mill fundamental basketball. The irony is that LA was fundamentally impressive in their win at Cleveland (only 6 TOs, great defense, fluid offense). It's a player-driven league and has been for as long as I can remember.

Agreed. But as FWD points out below is the "why" to the "what it is". I've long believed that due to the financial condition of the NBA in the late 70's: it was drowing in red ink, several franchises in dire straights on the verge of collapse, TV revenues down and half empty arenas that something had to be done to survive. So a MARKETING change was conceived and the players now became the primary product to promote instead of the teams. This worked out beautifully with Magic, Bird and then Jordon coming into the league at that time. It also didn't hurt for those players to all go to large market areas - LA, Boston and Chicago either.



Sure. My point is that outlets like ESPN have chosen to anoint players like those two, almost to the exception of others. I wonder sometimes where the league would be if ESPN had chosen to give the same sort of devoted, loving, "your my boy" coverage to Tim Duncan 10 years ago -- I suspect, frankly, that people would be tuning in to watch the Spurs because Tim Duncan would be a mega-star.

Again, my point isn't to dispute what you've said in general. It's to dispute this notion that "it's what the people want" in the sense that I think it's what the people have been made to want.

If this is the NFL, the Spurs are a must-watch glory team and Duncan is a mega-star. In the NBA, guys who have substantially fewer actual accomplishments than a guy like Duncan are mega-stars, teams that haven't done as much as Duncan's Spurs are must-watch glory teams. That's no coincidence -- it's directed coverage.

I also think that the league and media figured out that the average fan is basically uneducated about the ins and outs of BB and what was needed to attract them is exciting entertainment - facial dunks, wicked crossovers, 3 pt shooting, between the legs passing...etc rather than basic fundamental BB. I remember the ESPN highlight reels back in the 80's being all about that stuff. It's was MJ, Magic, Bird, Dominique...etc.

It's amazing how few teams in the NBA are avidly promoted vs. the NFL. A four time Super Bowl champ winning at a .600 + clip for over a decade is a must see team. Period!

But I guess not so much in the NBA.

[ClingingMars]

I thought it was funny that with about 2:48 left in the 4th, Tirico said "2 minutes 48 seconds until Kobe vs. LeBron!" completely ignoring the highly competitive and entertaining game in front of him.

It's a joke, but who cares.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[ClingingMars]

Happen to notice a familiar name in that specific blurp?

James White!

James White!!!!

[DeadlyDynasty]

Agreed. But as FWD points out below is the "why" to the "what it is". I've long believed that due to the financial condition of the NBA in the late 70's: it was drowing in red ink, several franchises in dire straights on the verge of collapse, TV revenues down and half empty arenas that something had to be done to survive. So a MARKETING change was conceived and the players now became the primary product to promote instead of the teams. This worked out beautifully with Magic, Bird and then Jordon coming into the league at that time. It also didn't hurt for those players to all go to large market areas - LA, Boston and Chicago either.




I also think that the league and media figured out that the average fan is basically uneducated about the ins and outs of BB and what was needed to attract them is exciting entertainment - facial dunks, wicked crossovers, 3 pt shooting, between the legs passing...etc rather than basic fundamental BB. I remember the ESPN highlight reels back in the 80's being all about that stuff. It's was MJ, Magic, Bird, Dominique...etc.

It's amazing how few teams in the NBA are avidly promoted vs. the NFL. A four time Super Bowl champ winning at a .600 + clip for over a decade is a must see team. Period!

But I guess not so much in the NBA.
But if there wasn't those attributes to the game we'd basically be watching a WNBA game. I know what you're saying, "it's what we've been trained to like," but hey, that's our entire culture. Everything is bigger, better, and flashier and that sells. Like I said, it's not right, but it is what it is

[BlackSwordsMan]

Not even first take on ESPN mentioned the spurs win. But they did a college team from some shit state win before the lakers highlights

[DeadlyDynasty]

The A-Roid scandal has bumped us all to the back page...god I'm sick of baseball already and it's not even spring training. This steroid scandal is like a turd that won't flush

[m33p0]

People it was a sunday afternoon matchup between not only the teams with the two best records in the NBA, but Kobe v. LeBron. I don't particularly agree with it--especially since I thought the Celtic-Spur game was more competitive--but that's what the people want. You guys should be happy...ur a 4-time NBA champion that is somehow flying under the media radar despite another solid year. Gives Pop another chance to use the no-respect card
they could try and throw us a bone from time to time. it's not like we're asking them to crown the spurs as champions.

[NFGIII]

But if there wasn't those attributes to the game we'd basically be watching a WNBA game. I know what you're saying, "it's what we've been trained to like," but hey, that's our entire culture. Everything is bigger, better, and flashier and that sells. Like I said, it's not right, but it is what it is

Absolutely. The common fan wants excitement and the inner beauty of the game - regardless of sport - is really of no concern to them. Americans demand instant gratification and by God they had better get it or they will go elsewhere.

Look ot the changes instituted by the NFL and NBA to increase the offensive production thereby supplying the satisfaction to fulfill that all desired gratification.

[Allanon]

Seeing as the Spurs (with a worse record) have just leap-frogged over the Celtics and Cavs and Magic, I don't know how much more respect you guys want.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/powerranking?season=2009&week=15

1 (4) Lakers 41-9 If the past seven days say anything, it's that this team is better than last season's Lakers -- even if Bynum can't come back -- because of Pau and Ariza ... and if the Odom we saw in Boston and Cleveland sticks around.

2 (5) Spurs 34-15 Looks like that Popovich fellow knew just what he was doing when he ordered Timmy, Manu and Tony to skip the game in Denver, gas up during the four days off that followed and then leave it all on the floor in Boston.

3 (1) Celtics 42-11 Can't see the Celtics sliding into another 2-7 funk after their second streak-busting loss to the Lakers. But Boston just allowed 100 points in three successive games, which is something else we didn't expect to see.

4 (3) Cavaliers 39-10 First Mo Williams is snubbed again for an All-Star spot, then LeBron is stripped of his MSG triple-double, then the home winning streak is halted by the Lakers. Weeks don't get much more deflating for teams up here.

5 (2) Magic 38-12 Jameer is obviously borderline irreplaceable for the Magic, but all of us will feel the loss, too. Hard to see how the second round of the East playoffs can be as tasty as we thought with Orlando missing such a major piece.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, but it's not exactly like the Pittsburgh Steelers, among the favorite NFL teams for fans and the media alike, have ever played a tremendously exciting brand of football.

If NBA coverage applied to the NFL, Larry Fitzgerald and the exciting, fast-paced, air-it-out-at-all-costs Cardinals would have been mega-stars long before their Super Bowl run in 2008-09.

I stand by what I think has been my point all along: yes, fans want to see superstars, but in the NBA the determination about who is a superstar depends substantially upon the extent to which ESPN and other such outlets decree that certain players shall be superstars.

[FromWayDowntown]

Seeing as the Spurs (with a worse record) have just leap-frogged over the Celtics and Cavs and Magic, I don't know how much more respect you guys want.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/powerranking?season=2009&week=15

1 (4) Lakers 41-9 If the past seven days say anything, it's that this team is better than last season's Lakers -- even if Bynum can't come back -- because of Pau and Ariza ... and if the Odom we saw in Boston and Cleveland sticks around.

2 (5) Spurs 34-15 Looks like that Popovich fellow knew just what he was doing when he ordered Timmy, Manu and Tony to skip the game in Denver, gas up during the four days off that followed and then leave it all on the floor in Boston.

3 (1) Celtics 42-11 Can't see the Celtics sliding into another 2-7 funk after their second streak-busting loss to the Lakers. But Boston just allowed 100 points in three successive games, which is something else we didn't expect to see.

4 (3) Cavaliers 39-10 First Mo Williams is snubbed again for an All-Star spot, then LeBron is stripped of his MSG triple-double, then the home winning streak is halted by the Lakers. Weeks don't get much more deflating for teams up here.

5 (2) Magic 38-12 Jameer is obviously borderline irreplaceable for the Magic, but all of us will feel the loss, too. Hard to see how the second round of the East playoffs can be as tasty as we thought with Orlando missing such a major piece.

Huge difference between ESPN in general and Stein, who actually covers the league and is highly conversant about its minor stars and role players while being focused -- as his weekly power rankings would suggest -- upon the quality of teams and not just their star power.

What I'm talking about here has less to do with the Spurs specifically than it does with the way in which major media outlets, for the most part, cover the NBA. It's star-making at its finest followed by a rejection of almost anyone who doesn't qualify as a star.

Again, if Brandon Roy pulls off the exact same game that Kobe did at MSG last week, do you think the coverage is the same? Tony Parker? Dirk Nowitzki? Joe Johnson?

[SenorSpur]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-090209

I know I should let it go, but it just irks me. Until I read closely, I thought there was no mention at all of our win in Boston. It is stuffed at the bottom of #3, below Steve Nash's picture...mixed in with a bunch of meaningless Elias stats. It is actually a tidbit about two players in the Spurs front court having at least 23pts each, so it really doesn't single out the fact that we just beat one of the best teams in the NBA on their home floor.

Whatever. :rolleyes

I think you points are well founded. And it's not just you.

I can honestly say this, not as a Spurs fan, but a pro basketball fan. I'm quite sick of the 24x7 Kobe/Lebron news cycle. From their statistical exploits of this past week to the unnecessary attention on the summer of 2010 and the burning question of "What will LeBron do?".

Just this past week, the 4-letter network took this star-indulgence to a new level - even for them. They ran highlights of Kobe and Lebron's exploits a full 48 hours after the games had concluded!

On Sunday, while the Spurs/Celtics were playing, guess what game NBATV was broadcasting? A replay of the Fakers/Knicks game in MSG last week. Of course, ABC continued the excessive fanfare by spending practically all of their NBA Shootaround pregame segments previewing the 2nd game of the double-header. All this while, virtually ignoring the Spurs/Celtics tilt until they were ready to tipoff.

My point is the league is filled with other stories, news & notes, and features that would be useful to the NBA viewing fan. There are trade rumors galore, game highlights from the previous night, injury reports and such. All of which gets pushed aside for more forced coverage of Kobe/Lebron, and their respective teams.

Again, this has nothing to do with my love for the Spurs. Hell, I love the Dallas Cowboys, but I'm so sick of them being the subject of every fricking NFL storyline that I'm ready to puke. No team, player or coach should warrant that much overblown coverage - in any sport.

[Allanon]

Huge difference between ESPN in general and Stein, who actually covers the league and is highly conversant about its minor stars and role players while being focused -- as his weekly power rankings would suggest -- upon the quality of teams and not just their star power.

What I'm talking about here has less to do with the Spurs specifically than it does with the way in which major media outlets, for the most part, cover the NBA. It's star-making at its finest followed by a rejection of almost anyone who doesn't qualify as a star.

Again, if Brandon Roy pulls off the exact same game that Kobe did at MSG last week, do you think the coverage is the same? Tony Parker? Dirk Nowitzki? Joe Johnson?

This is why I say Duncan needs to go on a rampage, go pick on some point guards or start talking trash. The Spurs go out of their way to fly under the radar, and it starts with their Superstar.

The Lakers were supposed to lose in Cleveland. Nobody's surprised the Celtics lost to the Spurs. Not much of a story.

Talking about the Spurs being good is like saying water is wet. There's just not much excitement there.

[Hollinger]

Here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090209

Happy now?

[WildcardManu]

When Jordan was the face of the NBA he had the rings to prove his value.

That's the problem, the media is expecting the next Jordan giving less accomplished players the coverage they've yet to deserve just so they could try and say "I told you so, we knew all along this kid was a star". They force feed this to America showing that individual accolades are far greater than team work and dedication. Feed in swines Kobe & Lebron > team work and sportsmanship.

[timmo]

What is the first and primary letter in ESPN?

E

Entertainment. Sports is secondary.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Although this year is looking to be an exception due to the youth injection, the Spurs of the last 10 years play a boring (but effective) brand of basketball. Very defensive, slow-paced games with lots of fouls and flopping and O/U's of 175 points. For a casual fan that's hard to watch--whether you've been trained to dislike it or not. The 80's were the antithesis of this and the defensive, bogged-down trend started with Daly's Pistons and Riley's Knicks.

[WildcardManu]

Here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090209

Happy now?

Slight retraction from the bullshit feeder?

[ambchang]

It should be noted that the league does have a say with which network to partner with every few years, and they have chosen to go with networks that have selected to market individual stars than those that has deeper basketball knowledge.

Networks such as NBC and TNT, though with their flaws, are generally more knowledgeable in the game of basketball than that of ABC and ESPN.

It is no secret that the league has been trying desperately to look for the next Jordan since his Airness retired after the 1998 (the Washington stint doesn't count), or even before. This is no different from when the waves of "next Magics' came in during the mid-90s (Penny Hardaway, Steve Smith, Lamar Odom, Danny Manning, Walt Williams, and such).

While the chosen one, Jordan, successfully dominated the 90s, the next appointed one (Kobe or LeBron) was not as successful in their pursuit of a championship as Jordan was, and this is playing out much like Jordan's 1st 7 years in the league.

We will see where this take us. Frankly, I would be very surprised if Kobe or LeBron was not able to win a championship with them as the featured player.

[MarHill]

This is why I say Duncan needs to go on a rampage, go pick on some point guards or start talking trash. The Spurs go out of their way to fly under the radar, and it starts with their Superstar.

The Lakers were supposed to lose in Cleveland. Nobody's surprised the Celtics lost to the Spurs. Not much of a story.

Talking about the Spurs being good is like saying water is wet. There's just not much excitement there.

Allanon,

Then its up to the media to be creative and find a way to sell the Spurs to the general public.

The media are creative when they want be and becomes lazy when it's a team that doesn't have any drama and plays the sport efficently and well.

Sell that.....

It seemed to me yesterday there was only one game on ABC. I'm not a Kobe or Lebron hater and they deserved pub. But, there was a first game between the last 2 CHAMPIONS and it was treated as an afterthought!!

That's ridiculous!!

Also, I thought the first game was better start to finish than the second game.

:flag:

[MarHill]

What is the first and primary letter in ESPN?

E

Entertainment. Sports is secondary.

Unfortunately, you are right!

But..the funny part about all of this is that Tony and Manu are very entertaining players.

Even, if I wasn't a Spurs fan...I would enjoy watching them play basketball.

[Allanon]

Allanon,

Then its up to the media to be creative and find a way to sell the Spurs to the general public.

The media are creative when they want be and becomes lazy when it's a team that doesn't have any drama and plays the sport efficently and well.

Sell that.....

It seemed to me yesterday there was only one game on ABC. I'm not a Kobe or Lebron hater and they deserved pub. But, there was a first game between the last 2 CHAMPIONS and it was treated as an afterthought!!

That's ridiculous!!

All true Marhill, but as we all know, sex sells. Spurs go about their business but they ain't sexy.

Spurs want a story, Duncan should have clotheslined KG. Or Tony Parker should have released his new rap album. Guaranteed story right there.

Or Pop should have sat out the Big 3 again to defy NBA scheduling on Sundays.

Instead, the Spurs just went out and beat a team they were supposed to beat.

The two best teams come from the West right now, and it scares the media. No story.



Also, I thought the first game was better start to finish than the second game.

:flag:

I said this before the game as well.

[MarHill]

All true Marhill, but as we all know, sex sells. Spurs go about their business but they ain't sexy.

Spurs want a story, Duncan should have clotheslined KG. Or Tony Parker should have released his new rap album. Guaranteed story right there.

Or Pop should have sat out the Big 3 again to defy NBA scheduling on Sundays.

Instead, the Spurs just went out and beat a team they were supposed to beat.

The two best teams come from the West right now, and it scares the media. No story.



I said this before the game as well.

Allanon,

You're right!

I'm just voicing the frustrations of a lot of people here in San Antonio.

I have a healthy respect for the Lakers and the Celtics and they have been the signature franchises in the NBA all these years and deserved the pub they get.

However, this team here in South Texas has found a way to be excellent (yes..it help tremendously that they drafted TD!) for the last ten years.

And if the American Culture is about winning...this team has done that multiple times. Isn't it a fluke anymore and they should be covered as such!

The NFL gets it and the Patriots got the pub they deserved and it seems the NBA has missed that.

You make some good points...though!!

:toast

[Harry Callahan]

This would have happened if he would have been drafted by Boston...and you would have never heard "Tim Duncan" and "boring" in the same sentence.


True,
Larry Bird was the most boring guy in the world and an A-Hole to boot.

Tim would have been mentioned in the same sentence with Bill Russell for the last twelve years and deservedly so.

Instead, ABC/espn is marking time until Duncan hangs 'em up. It's sad.

[Harry Callahan]

Unfortunately, you are right!

But..the funny part about all of this is that Tony and Manu are very entertaining players.

Even, if I wasn't a Spurs fan...I would enjoy watching them play basketball.

Correct,

I think you could have called the late 90s Spurs team somewhat boring because they just pounded the ball inside to Duncan and Robinson and would have lengthy scoring droughts.

The new version of the Spurs the last 6 or 7 years have a lot more explosiveness and open court play.

Duncan being the centerpiece makes the uninformed think they don't play exciting BBall.

[ambchang]

Although this year is looking to be an exception due to the youth injection, the Spurs of the last 10 years play a boring (but effective) brand of basketball. Very defensive, slow-paced games with lots of fouls and flopping and O/U's of 175 points. For a casual fan that's hard to watch--whether you've been trained to dislike it or not. The 80's were the antithesis of this and the defensive, bogged-down trend started with Daly's Pistons and Riley's Knicks.

I compared the Spurs and the Lakers for the 07-08, 06-07, 04-05, and 02-03 seasons. The reason I chose the Lakers is because they are supposedly the sexy team and the whole basketball world revolves around the lakers, and the reason I chose those years is because those were the 3 most recent Spurs championship years + last year.

While it is true that the Spurs scored less than the Lakers in all 4 seasons, they foul less in all 4 seasons, shot fewer FTs in 3 out of the 4, made more FGs in 1, had a better FG% in 3 out of the 4 seasons (last year being the exception), and has a lower FT to FG ratio half the time.

In other words, the Spurs is slower paced than the Lakers, but the foul less, and make shots at a higher rate. I can't do the flopping part, as there are no official statistics, but with the likes of Fisher, Sasha and Gasol, I would be shocked if the Lakers are not one of the teams that is at the top of the flop list every year.

[Extra Stout]

If the exact roster of the Pittsburgh Steelers instead made up the Seattle Seahawks, and it was that franchise that had won two Super Bowls in the past four years, would it have anywhere near the following that the Steelers do? I doubt it.

The NFL is more team-oriented, sure, but it too has hierarchies of teams, a lot more than it used to. Teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay get grandfathered in because they developed national followings before the generations that decided only the big cities matter came to dominate the culture. Subsequent generations just jump on the existing bandwagon. The Carolina Panthers could win four consecutive Super Bowls and still nobody would care about them.

[TampaDude]

Talk about flying under the radar...ESPN didn't even want to mention the Spurs by name yesterday. After the Lakers-Cavs game, SportsCenter talked about Kobe vs. LeBron and then how the Celtics lost to "a Western Conference team"... :lmao

[mytespurs]

I thought it was funny that with about 2:48 left in the 4th, Tirico said "2 minutes 48 seconds until Kobe vs. LeBron!" completely ignoring the highly competitive and entertaining game in front of him.

It's a joke, but who cares.

Yes it is because my impression was that the Spurs-celtics was the more entertaining and exciting of the two games.

I live in LA so naturally the coverage is laker saturated; so I get the paper and look up highlights/scores column from the day's action....I see no mention of the Spurs/Celtics game.....I couldn't believe they didn't cover that game (conspiracy theory alert!) until I realized it was at the top of the column-game of the day. :king

[duncan228]

I live in LA so naturally the coverage is laker saturated; so I get the paper and look up highlights/scores column from the day's action....I see no mention of the Spurs/Celtics game.....I couldn't believe they didn't cover that game (conspiracy theory alert!) until I realized it was at the top of the column-game of the day. :king

Same here, the OC Register. Game of the day and a great pic too. :)

[Spurminator]

Interestingly enough, one of the few times where the media focuses on teams more than individuals is when rosters are selected for the All Star Game. "The Cavs should have more than one All Star," "The Pistons should have four All Stars because they're a true 'team,'" etc.

It's the one time of the year where great individuals should be highlighted. Instead, we hear about how Mo Williams should be an All Star because he's on the best team in the East. It's an opportunity to legitimately hype individual greatness and increase the number of "stars" the NBA can market for ratings, jersey sales, etc, but it's become another example of the tendency towards making the NBA a 30 team league with only three or four teams anyone knows anything about.

[KaiRMD1]

I don't care anymore if the Spurs get no highlights, as long as we win and nobody notices then that's all I can ask for. You know how dangerous that makes the Spurs?

[AFBlue]

Saw that this morning and was dumbfounded. Yes, I know there were two buzzer-beaters and the Lebron/Kobe showdown, but c'mon! It was a very entertaining game with lead changes and big shots...

I mean I have gotten used to the lack of coverage over the years, but I have to say I was definitely surprised by their omission.

[Cry Havoc]

All true Marhill, but as we all know, sex sells. Spurs go about their business but they ain't sexy.

Spurs want a story, Duncan should have clotheslined KG. Or Tony Parker should have released his new rap album. Guaranteed story right there.

Or Pop should have sat out the Big 3 again to defy NBA scheduling on Sundays.

Instead, the Spurs just went out and beat a team they were supposed to beat.

The two best teams come from the West right now, and it scares the media. No story.



I said this before the game as well.

This just isn't about Spurs fans feeling disenfranchised by the lack of coverage they get. I'm genuinely concerned about the NBA, because if they continue down this road, they are either going to have to fix Finals games, or face the prospect of losing money every single time you have a Finals without the Celtics, Lakers, or Bulls (or Knicks, but pffft). This could lead to a lot of "questionable" decisions by the NBA brass to make sure 1 or 2 of the three power markets are always in play.

The NBA could be vastly improving it's position on football if it just marketed itself right. A lot of us not only love the Spurs, but we love basketball in general and want to see the sport thrive, instead of turn even more towards the individual and what that one person can accomplish regardless of the teamplay involved. The more coverage "LeBron vs. Kobe" over "team vs. team (or defending champ vs. former champ!) gets, the farther away from a pure, competitive game of basketball we are.

It's pathetic.

[igorotme]

This whole weekend has been ridiculously lame. The NBA media coverage from EVERYBODY is so saturated with Laker dick sucking I don't see how fans don't become tired of it and root against the Lakers.

You would think eventually they'd have to talk about something else, but it is Lakers 24/7.

That lame circus in PHX gets more run.


..they are selfish media! anyway we love the spurs basketball here in asia!
Spurs endures...:lobt2:

[Obstructed_View]

My favorite thing is the interview with George Karl. Here are the three topics they printed him commenting on:

On the Lakers' trade of Vladimir Radmanovic to Charlotte for Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown:

On the Lakers after Andrew Bynum's injury and the Radmanovic trade:

On competing with the Lakers, who eliminated Denver in a first-round sweep last April:

[wijayas]

Sure. My point is that outlets like ESPN have chosen to anoint players like those two, almost to the exception of others. I wonder sometimes where the league would be if ESPN had chosen to give the same sort of devoted, loving, "your my boy" coverage to Tim Duncan 10 years ago -- I suspect, frankly, that people would be tuning in to watch the Spurs because Tim Duncan would be a mega-star.

Again, my point isn't to dispute what you've said in general. It's to dispute this notion that "it's what the people want" in the sense that I think it's what the people have been made to want.

If this is the NFL, the Spurs are a must-watch glory team and Duncan is a mega-star. In the NBA, guys who have substantially fewer actual accomplishments than a guy like Duncan are mega-stars, teams that haven't done as much as Duncan's Spurs are must-watch glory teams. That's no coincidence -- it's directed coverage.

Very well said. :toast :toast :toast

The NBA a.k.a. Stern's office annoints the "King" where "We Are All Witness" for marketing purposes. Therefore, the NBA must try very hard to make sure the "King" gets his ring(s) prompting Phil to play mind games with LeBron on his getting all the calls when he plays in the Q.

The NBA decides to promote Kobe and LeBron rivalry more so than Lakers vs. Celtics. The NBA will be very disappointed when the Spurs came out from the West because it shows their "directed coverage" is flawed. And then they complain of the low Ratings! (It is akin to a student who never studies and blame the report card when he gets an F. That's our NBA!)

[ducks]

Exactly. And in that time, they kept cutting to Lebron/Kobe walking out of tunnels, lacing up shoes, etc.

avery johnson told people it would be the role players that decided the game
guess what
it was

[wisnub]

SPurs need new marketing strategy...Im fucking tired to see things went this way every single time. Its time to change attitude and highlights things with dunks...anyway, its either spurs marketing sucks or spurs really dont care about highlights. I know Pop didnt care,but how about the fans?

[DieMrBond]

For a clue on how much influence this damn Kobe vs LeBron game had - in Australia (Perth), we get no news on the NBA in the regular news, never. Well, almost never.

Exceptions:
Andrew Bogut was drafted.
Kobe made it to the finals.
Boston won the finals.
Kobe played LeBron in a double header.

Guess who they get their footage from?

[wisnub]

For a clue on how much influence this damn Kobe vs LeBron game had - in Australia (Perth), we get no news on the NBA in the regular news, never. Well, almost never.

Exceptions:
Andrew Bogut was drafted.
Kobe made it to the finals.
Boston won the finals.
Kobe played LeBron in a double header.

Guess who they get their footage from?

i went to Perth to study in Murdoch Uni and used to be a Lakers fan. I know what u talking about. Is Perth Wildcats still exist? I still remember going to one of the games against Sidney, theyre looking good

[G-Nob]

The point is to fly under the radar, homes. After 10 years, it has to be spelled out for you?